Embedding Overlap Priors in Variational Left Ventricle Tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose to embed overlap priors in variational tracking of the left ventricle (LV) in cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) sequences. The method consists of evolving two curves toward the LV endo- and epicardium boundaries. We derive the curve evolution equations by minimizing two functionals each containing an original overlap prior constraint. The latter measures the conformity of the overlap between the nonparametric (kernel-based) intensity distributions within the three target regions--LV cavity, myocardium and background-to a prior learned from a given segmentation of the first frame. The Bhattacharyya coefficient is used as an overlap measure. Different from existing intensity-driven constraints, the proposed priors do not assume implicitly that the overlap between the intensity distributions within different regions has to be minimal. This prevents both the papillary muscles from being included erroneously in the myocardium and the curves from spilling into the background. Although neither geometric training nor preprocessing were used, quantitative evaluation of the similarities between automatic and independent manual segmentations showed that the proposed method yields a competitive score in comparison with existing methods. This allows more flexibility in clinical use because our solution is based only on the current intensity data, and consequently, the results are not bounded to the characteristics, variability, and mathematical description of a finite training set. We also demonstrate experimentally that the overlap measures are approximately constant over a cardiac sequence, which allows to learn the overlap priors from a single frame.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".